If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
Laihendi
My political opinion is not right but merely the way in which I truly feel would be the best way to try and advance society. I have looked at the same facts, statistics and political polls as (I assume) you have and come to my own conclusions. I don't, however, believe that my theory is right because it is just that, a theory untested, a belief that is personal to me and feels 'right' but is no more or less valid a theory than anyone else with a varied stance on the political system. In order to inform myself and confirm (or, indeed, change) my own political leaning I discuss finer points with people of varying different beliefs to myself. I cannot make a true informed decision on political debates (taxation, healthcare, social housing, whatever) without understanding EVERY side and then choosing the one I personally think best. If need be I can argue the counter-social argument in my circle (and I often do). I am aware of the pros and cons of each school of thought and grade their attributes accordingly, to limit them to being merely 'right' or 'wrong' does them injustice and shows a massive lack of true political insight.Â
I have tried to genuinely debate political topics with you before but countless times you have refused to actually discuss the pros and cons of your political school of thought, instead attacking the merest question as an offensive stance and calling it, as LJ said, nonsensical. You should instead be trying to answer the point rather than questioning the very nature of it.Â
Even now in this thread I have accused you of being a poor debater because you cannot listen to and understand and try to break down an argument, but instead turn it into a personal attack towards you and your political ideas, and you have done entirely again that by claiming I am attacking you with a personal vendetta.Â
My actions at TDH may not always have been upstanding but I wonder whether you're aware I don't post there any more, and that is partly in response to the fact that I disagreed with their suspending you. Even now I want to continue this response [rather than just face-desking] because I am interested in your political ideas and WANT to discuss them but continually find barriers from you. Here in OT you have neglected to engage with me often or merely made a comment only to ignore my reply.Â
You claim I am surrounded by people who agree with me but I have regularly debated my anti-gun stance and social ideals with people here, I have also agreed with you here at points although you perhaps don't see that and on top of everything I have spent many years studying both US and UK political law while it appears you have a cursory knowledge of UK politics at best, so you can't really begin to understand my political beliefs. In my personal life my family (whom I love and respect) are very conservative while my partner and his family are very socialist, and I work in a public library working day to day with people from all walks of life with all sorts of political opinions. Politics are important to me on a personal level, both in my career and in my personal life, but understanding and debating the values of every political side is key to that.Â
You do not know anything about me or what my beliefs are built on but you have yet again erroneously believed that you know and are aware and understand (as well as can then instantly dismiss) everything when it is very apparent you don't and yet again it is your fatal flaw.
Also I believe LJ answered this much more succinctly and far better than I did but you ignored his response, which again shows your unwillingness/inability to engage in the true debate, which is the core reason why you are a bad debater.
Log in to comment